Microsoft Adds an OpenSSH Client to Windows 10
servethehome.com
servethehome.com
* we also shipped OpenSSH's sshd server, but it's a little tricky to configure right now. Expect a blog post this week. * This is not production-ready in the current version of Windows 10 (hence the "(Beta)" in the label), but we hope to be soon. * All of this is being done in open-source out of a fork at https://github.com/powershell/Win32-OpenSSH (code work is technically checked into https://github.com/powershell/openssh-portable/ first, but those will be consolidated at some point). Check the Wiki there for a ton of info. * We've been working closely with the official OpenSSH Portable maintainers to get upstream at some point in the future. They've been awesome to work with so far, and we're really looking forward to moving Windows onto the definitive SSH implementation of the world.
This is been a super fun project to work on over the last couple years, and I'm glad that there's such a groundswell of excitement around it. Like I said, I hope to be publishing a lot more documentation/material on our plans as we get to a production-ready state.
I've also been super swamped with the release of PowerShell Core 6.0 [1] for Windows/macOS/Linux coming early next year, hence the lack of a good release announcement on these beta bits...Thanks to Patrick Kennedy for finding it and letting everyone know! :) )
When I connect to a Windows box running an sshd, what exactly happens? Do I just get dropped into a command prompt or PowerShell session or what?
With PowerShell Core 6, we also support PowerShell Remoting Protocol (PSRP) over SSH as a transport, which means that you can do stuff like New-PSSession and Enter-PSSession without WinRM. (PowerShell just gets registered as a "subsystem" of sshd, same thing sftp-server does.) You can check that out here: https://github.com/powershell/powershell/tree/master/demos/S...
Windows Client Access Licensing is annoying, but they have some web exception for web servers. SSH remote access is a whole new ballgame! I assume it is encouraged for one-at-a-time administrator use in much the same way Remote Desktop currently works, but even that isn't really communicated clearly yet (even from a high-level perspective).
It seems like getting the plans out there as soon as possible to begin collecting feedback and managing expectations is going to be win-win for everyone.
I'm joking.
It works fine without a passphrase.
Those builds will also be showing up in Insider builds over the next few weeks (if they haven't already).
If you grab our GitHub bits, we compile against LibreSSL there, and you should see LibreSSL showing up in future Insider builds of Windows. That brings support for all the other crypto algorithms you'd expect (RSA, DSA, etc.)
If you mean, "interact with them from an interactive shell like cmd or PowerShell", yes, you can absolutely do that. Our implementation literally stands up a console host on the server side, so whatever you can do in that console host with the privileges you have, you can do over SSH.
If you mean, "do you support SCP and SFTP for transferring files in a network-drivey way" the answer is also yes. SCP is supported directly against sshd, and we ship both an SFTP server and client.
If you're talking about something NFS or SMB related, I'd be curious to hear more details.
It says "ON THE BACKLOG" since October 01, 2014. You have a pretty long backlog, if you didnt implement the second top voted request in three years, out of backlog ;-)
It comes with bash and all the standard tools (including ssh IIRC), so I can work on a real command line. Especially as a vi user, I'm right at home.
I find this a lot easier to manage than Cygwin: a lighter install, no packages to select, and smoother integration.
When I bought my first Mac, back in the days of MacOS 10.2, I did so because of the BSD system underneath. Having a Unix system, whether its GNU or BSD, gives me access to tools that I'm familiar with and sometimes prefer to their GUI counterparts (e.g., scp/sftp vs FileZilla).
Now that Windows has this, switching back is something that I'm giving serious consideration to.
It's not clear to me that Windows has this ...
I, like you, adopted the MacOS ecosystem because it was UNIX underneath ... but there's a big difference between underneath and alongside.
Although it is not commonly done, you can control and interact with your OSX system with UNIX commands ... there's one single filesystem namespace and you can interact with it from the command prompt as well as kill GUI apps or set preferences or ifconfig, etc.
It's my understanding that the Ubuntu subsystem in recent windows is sort of a parallel environment ... but is not meant to control the system directly or as an alternate path of interaction with Windows, correct ?
For Xming, simply set DISPLAY in shell and local GUI programs just work, as well as SSH X forwarding.
[1] https://github.com/mintty/wsltty
[2] https://sourceforge.net/projects/xming/
(EDIT: typo)
I'm on a Dell XPS 15 9560 if that matters.
It does as I've had no issues personally on as self-built desktop, an ASUS laptop, a MacBook running Bootcamp, and now a Surface Laptop.
There are also some systems where kernel support for the devices is lagging, either because they are proprietary and poorly documented or because they have insufficient market penetration to get someone interested in writing good driver support. For example support for the pen on the Surface Pro 4 line is really horrible (IMHO) on Linux.
There's still a place for windows native tools.
I like PuTTY, and have used it a lot, but MobaXterm has been great.
I wish Cygwin performed better on Windows, git operations on Linux take minutes on Windows because it has to spin up the whole cygwin environment. This kind of still makes me want to use Linux, but MobaXTerm makes my Windows desktop very usable for administration.
MobaXterm is nice, but I don't like how heavy it is...
[1] https://gingter.org/2016/11/16/running-windows-10-ubuntu-bas...
Great wiki about set up and use here: https://github.com/msys2/msys2/wiki
Plus, the real reason you get Putty or SecureCRT if you’re lucky, is because they are actually terminal emulators and not a DOS shell.
Sorry I don’t find Mona compelling at all.
I used to use Cygwin but it became a pain to manage the packages and it couldn't update it's own setup.exe last I checked.
I recently tried out WSL and I still run into problems with the file system. My home directory is in a new place which is kind of annoying. And cloning a repo with Git changed all the line endings. autocrlf didn't do anything for me either.
Back to good ol' git.exe
I still can't run those command under Windows Subsystem for Linux.
I really can't believe somebody ever bought a MacBook because they found installing putty too much of hassle.
The pleasant interaction with other *nix systems was and is a primary driver for my choice of OS X.
PuTTy sucks. Every other terminal I have tried on Windows sucks. Getting terminal-based software to work on Windows sucks. I stopped trying years ago because a terminal on OS X doesn't suck. It might not be a perfect 10, but I'm happy with it.
I'm also more interested in Windows more and more as time passes.
Losing as the most popular OS has made Microsoft start doing some of the right things.
I think it's the explosion of open source and the corresponding command line tools that they started investing some time and effort to the command line.
I doubt Windows 10's inclusion of ssh alone addresses this use case; for that you'd want a full cygwin or something. I don't know anymore - I don't use Windows for any purpose other than games on dedicated gaming computers these days. Despite Apple going backwards with each successive macOS release (probably since 10.8) it's still a much more usable OS for the majority of the things I do than Windows 10. I do like Windows 10 better than Vista and 7, though, on my current gaming computer.
Never been a problem for me. What are your complaints?
I barely notice the difference, but if I had to choose I'd take putty over Terminal.app, which has default keyboard-shortcuts that clash with Bash. (I believe it was Alt-b, Alt-d, or maybe Alt-f. I forget exactly.)
It's generally difficult and awkward to work with and unpleasant to look at.
If you use git on Windows with PuTTY/plink it's also significantly slower than OpenSSH. I saw clones of a large repository go from 60 KB/s to 600 KB/s after switching from PuTTY to OpenSSH.
I like Putty's graphical session manager; on OSX and Linux I don't want to fiddle with ~/.ssh/config.
The lock-in with Putty is annoying though, being able to export all configured sessions to a .ssh/config file would be awesome.
The web, Unix, Linux, OSX, pretty much everything other than Microsoft uses properly namespace driven forward-slash separated paths with no drives and case sensitivity.
That you can't fix, merely abstract it away. I am tired of mapping between the two.
scp myfile.txt winmachine:/d/Users/Whoever/Documents/Projects/X/File.txt
Or
scp myfile.txt linmachine:/home/whoever/documents/projects/x/file.txt
While Microsoft has started doing good things which I can agree on, when did they lose OS market share to the point of not being number one? If we're talking about Apple hardware outselling any one vendor, that's true, but there's volume. Also, one of the first things I did after getting my MacBook Pro (and others I know who don't want to leverage VMs/Parallels. I like Windows and OSX being separate from a context point of view) was dual boot Windows.
Android is first by a large margin. iOS almost outnumbers Windows as well.
Microsoft post iPhone needs to prove that it's worth using a desktop at all, not that they deserve to have the highest share of desktop users. Stopping the bleeding inflicted by Macs, which sync so well with iOS, is part of that.
The number of people using Windows to do their "computer things" has gone down dramatically. Even if they have a Windows computer, much of the time spent doing computer things has moved to Android and iOS.
If I had a Linux laptop, an extraordinary amount of my time would be spent trying to make it work. Wireless breaks, sound breaks, upgrades break everything. I would have to spend a serious amount of time and research finding a laptop that had good Linux support... regardless I would still probably have to spend hours trying to get the sound or the wireless or sleep or some feature or another to work properly.
OS X just gets out of the way. I have never had to put any work into making the graphics card work or making sound work or making the network work or fixing boot... you get the picture.
If I'm using Linux on a laptop to do any sort of work, a sizable portion of the work becomes keeping Linux working on the laptop and I don't want that.
Macs historically have always been a decent compromise for having decent GUI/Linux-like terminal/nice hardware.
It's kind of a different environment now, with PC manufacturers coming up with well designed laptops and Windows offering more Linux integration.
Linux could be the new Mac os X if all the Linux distributions chose to focus on one platform and way to do things, but nobody in the Linux world is going to do this.
Also, Mac has unified hardware, so they pretty much can optimize so that stuff Just Works.
PuTTy is amazing, and my experience of using windows over the years would have been far worse without it.
However I do understand the point - compared to using a real terminal, it does indeed suck to be stuck on windows using PuTTy
For a terminal on windows, I have now taken to install cygwin, X on cygwin, and then xfce-terminal on top. It's not perfect either, but it is better.
I think the question is not whether someone would buy a MacBook because it has these tools built in but rather, why would someone buy Windoze given that it doesn't have these tools built in?
Not trying to be condescending, but it seems to need highlighting that just having SSH access isn't enough.
Not to mention that these other environments have offered other benefits [especially] to developers looking for a programming environment that works for them. The VS.Net IDE-play-button approach to automating testing and deployment doesn't scale for everybody.
> the people buying Macbooks, or using Linux directly [...]
... don't give two hoots about Powershell. Sorry, but I did limit what I was saying to describe people not using Windows.
No, but something like installing putty was the last straw.
Putty is a terrible experience; very difficult to use. It's like every misstep or disconnection involves a dozen or so clicks back into the configuration area to "try again". This feels like normal on Windows though.
I recently tried to port my workflow to Windows for a year, but I eventually gave up simply because of something like this. I might've made it 6-7 months and I can't recall exactly where it was, death from a thousand cuts maybe.
Hat's off to you, I didn't even make it that many weeks.
Between filenames/paths being too long, poor terminals with janky colour schemes (save for Mobaxterm, it's great), WSL issues (like umask handling), gvim/vim issues with plugins, and loads of other annoying bits I just went back to Linux.
Linux is FAR from perfect, especially as I have an Nvidia graphics card, but there's a lot to like there too. Having run Fedora 27/Ubuntu 17.10 I've found I really really like Gnome. I seem to be in a club of one there (and it's buggy as hell on 17.10) but for me it's been great to use.
Not that I wouldn't use Mac if I found a couple grand down the back of the sofa, but as a daily driver Linux has been less painful. Even on the laptop, though I do have one of those Dell certified ones.
Normally you have a fully-fledged programming language that sometimes runs a command being SSH client, and universal one at that (you can pipe data through it, you can pipe data out of it, you can run remote commands non-interactively with it, you can jump through SSH on other hosts with it, you can set up TCP tunnels in ad-hoc manner without going through the configuration, and obviously you can run an interactive shell). Plus you get scp for file transfer out of the box, and lftp (which understands sftp protocol) and rsync after installing some barely related software, all of them still able to jump through other hosts.
Now compare it to the glorious ability to open a window with remote shell (and only direct one, no jumping through a bastion host), and maybe a TCP tunnel with some clicking through every single time (you can't recall the history of commands, because there was no command in the first place; the best you can do is to save the tunnel configuration permanently). And maybe file transfer if you remembered to download PuTTY's scp client.
You can do SSH proxying with PuTTY, too. It's just called something different:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/28926612/putty-configura...
Plus PuTTY has a command line interface and everything. You can do all the things you mention with PuTTY from a cmd.exe or PowerShell prompt.
Using PuTTY or Mingw tools on Windows sucks compared to using them on a Unix-based system. I gotta say the Windows Subsystem for Linux really helps in that regard - as does native SSH in cmd an PowerShell (PowerShell by itself is also pretty awesome once you get the hang of it). Linux did not use to be such a great competitor for the rest of desktop usage (some will argue it still isn't).
Depends, for the occasional deep into CLI world to run a script, is quite ok.
Granted, the defaults regarding mouse copy-paste and window size were only improved on Windows 10.
> Not to mention that since developers are only using Linux and Mac, you will have libraries which does not work on windows (because nobody even tried).
Not all developers are pure UNIX devs doing POSIXy stuff.
Why they're trying to replace it with Powershell rather than improving cmd.exe is silly, however.
Just install Ubuntu Shell.
Also, it's not like you don't need to install iTerm, zsh, docker, python libraries etc on mac. It's not like it comes with them by default. Your argument is kind of moot.
cmd.exe and conhost.exe won't do the job.
Mabye Homebrew, and its predecessors, were the real killer apps for mac?
Maybe I just don't remember installing it, but I think macs have zsh out-of-the-box too.
From the point of resourcing, I mean. Here we have Microsoft on a gazillion dollars of capital and one of the most critical tools for several people is developed by a single talented hobbyist who gives it for free.
And of course my next computer will be a MacBook again.
I'm one of these somebodies.
It's not that installing Putty is a hassle, but my choice to buy a MacBook was very heavily driven by the fact that macOS is Unix based. My time spent between Windows 10 and macOS is pretty even, but it is a much more enjoyable experience to develop in macOS partly because of the Unix-based shell.
I can't imagine (as the author asserts) that people left Windows for Apple because of the lack of a command ssh client. Here's a thought: If you need to spend time on Unix/Linux machines, why not just run that on the desktop? I've been Linux only for 10 years and have no issues. OK, I do need Windows for the rare moments where I have to collaborate on Word or PowerPoint documents; Win in a VM (KVM/QEMU) gets the job done.
Does this new client support ssh-copy-id and passwordless logins? I have a couple of public-facing machines that need ssh; I refuse to enable password authentication as they'll get banged on all day!
Running a large fleet of non-Windows computers means writing your own software to manage them, just like Google had to do [0]. Not every business wants to do that.
[0] https://9to5mac.com/2013/11/27/how-google-manages-over-40000...
I imagine as the growth of SaaS continues we will see less of this, especially because it's much easier for the IT department to manage one type of computer where macs tend to have a higher build quality than most windows based machines.
What's your point? Apple Macs are Unix, and in fact certifiably UNIX®: https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/
Others probably feel the same, and I suspect that was the GP's point as well. :)
Also, almost nobody care about Unix certification. Linux isn't certified, and except for really niche things, Linux is all that matters (if you aren't running Windows).
Because at least for Linux, its desktop support is still severely lacking. Maybe it's the distribution I was using (Ubuntu), but all i wanted to do was hook my laptop up to my monitors and use the external monitors alongside my laptop monitor, like I do on Mac or Windows laptops.
I failed.
I remember hand coding an XFree86Config file almost two decades ago to get three monitors setup.
So yeah, that's why I don't work with Linux on the desktop. Because it doesn't work for me on the desktop.
Yeah, it's come a long way since then ;) It's 100% plug and play, at least with fedora/ubuntu/debian. Haven't played much outside that realm.
Otherwise, multi-monitor setup is plug-and-play. I even have an anecdote, where Thinkpad with Fedora saved a meeting ;)
[0]https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/latest.ht...
Signing doesn't prevent downgrade attacks, HTTPS does.
Odd licensing (free for up to 4 users/machines, but crossing to 5 required $45/seat) really crimped adoption before the license was changed. https://web.archive.org/web/20160329203117/https://www.bitvi...
Bitvise sells a solid Windows-friendly SSH server for $100. I am not affiliated apart from being a happy user since before OpenSSH supported AuthenticationMethods (multiple required) in 2013; it has been my straightforward licensing alternative to Remote Desktop Gateway.
Putty.org links to the Putty download page with a disclaimer separating promotion of Bitvise software below. The contrast in marketing language between "source code [...] developed and supported by a group of volunteers" vs. "developed and supported professionally" definitely appeals directly to the Windows mindset! Unfortunately Bitvise's "growth hacking" makes commercial sense, even if it does cost them potential users.
It is always interesting to contrast various SEO approaches; for example: contrasting https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty and https://winscp.net. It would be neat if the Putty author would chime in here; perhaps a funding drive for putty.net is in order!
I'd really like something faster with full color and font support I can SSH from.
By true color support, I mean this: https://github.com/chriskempson/base16-shell
I use it to change my colors depending on the machine I am on. If I log onto a production server, the color scheme switch to high contrast with red background.
1. https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/commandline/2016/09/22/24-b...
2. https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/commandline/2017/08/11/intr...
As for the terminal, it went under quite a revamp for lxss support (linux subsystem / Windows Subsystem for Linux)
If you do not want to watch go to “Manage Optional Features” then + “Add a feature”. You can then scroll down the list and find the OpenSSH Client (Beta) and OpenSSH Server (Beta) features in Windows.
Do you really need a video when the installation instructions are 2 sentences?
(The worst offender that I've come across for this stuff is Minecraft mods. I want to know how this machine block works, not watch you chat about random stuff for 30 minutes hoping that the explanation is somewhere around minute 19!)
(I assume most of these videos are so unnecessarily long because it increases ad earnings for the content creators.)
Add-WindowsCapability -Online -Name OpenSSH.Client
Personally I would recommend anyone on Windows to use WSL (which supports ssh and scp out of the box) but it's nice to see this is available for people who don't want to use WSL.
Do you have something you can share publicly to demonstrate to the uninitiated how painful this has been?
Putty's dedication to the Windows registry has caused me tremendous grief.
Helping end users (Windows developers) configure Putty is the bane of my "discount" remote access strategy (SSH port forwarding).
It gets even worse too because in some of my courses (like my Let's Encrypt course) I request people to securely transfer files to their DO server.
So now they have to set up WinSCP or a comparable tool, which has its own set of lengthly instructions.
And for comparison on MacOS, Linux or WSL it's just:
Create SSH key: ssh-keygen -t rsa (hit enter a couple of times)
SSH into a server: ssh user@host
SCP a file to a server: scp foo.conf user@host:/tmp
And frankly with the tiniest bit of effort I can crank up a local xterm and then ssh which gives me lovely things like color, font choice, easy window size changes and thousands of lines of scrollback. Why in 2017 would I want to use a bare naked ssh client unless there is simply no other choice?
If this will be installed by default it will be awesome, and imho even the process described here by enabling a feature is still better than putty.exe (it will get managed by windows and updated if need be etc.).
For my own windows computers though, the first thing I install is WSL and a proper terminal app (cmder).
I will say if this includes active directory integration so that ssh'ing from a windows box to a kerberos-protected unix one that could be slightly helpful. And if not that's just another reason to keep using putty. LOL.
But nevertheless I'm happy. Great job
Honestly though, I'm more interested in an SSH server for Windows. I haven't tried for many years, but last time I did, getting something more secure than telnet was a massive pain.
> For years, Apple MacBooks have been the go-to choice for many admins partly because getting to a ssh shell is so easy.
It's a good step to be sure, but not a replacement for Putty by any means.
without these you'll likely be unable to connect to Cisco devices, vCenter, etc.
Ive been using it for probably > 5 years, and it's been rock solid.runs as a Windows service, supports both Windows and custom credentials, comes with a nice GUI configuration tool too, can highly recommend it.
Microsoft is a technology company, they aren't in charge of the HR or management at your workplace and consequently shouldn't be trying to fix HR issues using technology. There's plenty of legitimate uses for MitM-ling TLS, and in some circumstances even that is one of them (e.g. on hardened networks with VPN endpoint interconnects).
Then Cygwin came of age, proved very very very useful for adding the tools windows corporate desktops missed out upon for work related activities.
But in all that time, PuTTy has been a very good terminal client for SSH needs. Whilst it is good that Microsoft is adding this, it has never been a hurdle for many and those who run into a corporate wall that tough, have always been able (from the ones I've worked with and collegues) been able to circumnavigate around it :- Usually using the corporate security policies to bash the corporate desktop witch upon the head. Fight fire with fire if you can't bend the rules.
For those who like -- and prefer -- GUI, Putty (or any other GUI based SSH client) will remain king. For the rest, this is very good news. It is the same client many have been using for many years under their Unix alike OS, just on Microsoft Windows.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/25755481/3712 (MSYS2 dev)
As for whether it's slower, I expect there'd be very little difference but MSYS2 would be a tiny amount slower due to the extra conversion work.
https://github.com/msys2/msys2/wiki/How-does-MSYS2-differ-fr...
MSYS2 provies a minimal shell required to run autotools and other build systems which get the source for software from the Internet from different repositories, configure them and build them. The shell and core tools exist mainly to allow porting Unix programs to run natively on Windows (i.e. without requiring a POSIX emulation layer). MSYS2 doesn't try to duplicate Cygwin's efforts more than necessary, so the number of provided POSIX-emulated software is very small.
(I recommend Cygwin, I've been using it for 15 years or so, and have access to almost everything I've ever needed from Linux command line. The slowest thing is forking; emulating it in Win32 executables is not easy on NT kernel. MSYS2 doesn't fix that.
Also, apt-cyg is pretty decent for installing packages on Cygwin.)
No seriously: Congratulations MS and please evaluate again if you really need that extra money you make with your advertising deals.
Now when I sit down at a Windows box, it's the Ubuntu terminal. Over the years, I've become pretty platform agnostic. However, having to change my keyboard shortcuts for Mac, and no single way to copy/paste in a terminal between Windows (double right-click)/Mac (alternate between middle-click, or right click and paste depending on the source)/Linux (good old middle click!) is pretty annoying. It's also annoying that the Mac uses a whole different button for copy/paste, and the Home/End keys don't work the same.
Linking an independent Microsoft licensing consultant discussing fun terms like "External Connectors" vs. "Client Access Licenses" (CALs), the "Primary User of a Windows device" and the current "Web Workload" exception... maybe a new exception is on the way.
https://github.com/PowerShell/Win32-OpenSSH/issues/926#issue...
I'll skip and continue supporting and using PuTTY.
The PuTTY developers should get a trophy for an essential dev tool that has been around for ages, free and just works.
Sorry Microsoft, too little too late, you are an anti-user company, and I hope your desktop share withers and dies. I'd rather see the world on osx cause at least it has a semi-decent gnu userland.
I smell blood in the water with moves like this. Its time to ramp up the attack people! Step 1: rip out AD and replace with Samba4. Step 2: windows servers become Linux servers. Step 3: non-office user terminals become Linux terminals. ...
Lack of a half-decent terminal emulator is. cmd.exe is just terrible (I assume that's what I see in the screenshot).
And keeps improving: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/commandline/tag/console/
Thank you for the link, I had no idea. I haven't kept tabs on the recent developments. Not sure if I'll ever upgrade to Windows 10, but I keep it in a cage somewhere, so I'll take a look.
* tabs * splitting a pane * a default font with a high unicode coverage * better theme support (the current system is clunky)
I don't even expect that you can read or write to those partitions, which of course would be trivial to add for them. Just recognition would be great!
So on that note, anyone know how to report bugs on this? Cursory Googling isn't turning up much.
It works. Really well.
Microsoft are going to try and get the forked Windows support merged into OpenSSH ports upstream.
I ported openssh to windows in year 2000.
I don't think so. Putty is not only a superb ssh client, it's also so much better shell than command prompt.
At least they can't afford intentional incompatibilities in this case.
Does it, or is this FUD? The source code is available.
Feel free to audit the source code if you want, I'm not using Windows any more so I don't really care.
Because they relied on software sales to businesses, therefore incompatible tools and vendor lock-in. They're now changing their business model towards IaaS/PaaS.
>This is why Microsoft loses so often.
Microsoft loses how? You might not like them but they definitely haven't lost anything.
What happened? Will this latest attempt to be non-hostile to unix be dumped as well? No ssh server, why not?
> There is a new beta feature in Windows 10 that may just see the retirement of Putty from many users: an OpenSSH client and OpenSSH server application for Windows.
great to see you are including OpenSSH as part of your own OS, it's a carefully crafted piece of software that has a lot of appeal among users.
A nice follow-up is to generously contribute back to The OpenBSD Foundation. You were already a donor and, doing so, are helping further developments while being much cheaper than hiring a team all by yourself.
Thank you.
No one has used telnet for over 20 years. The fact that it took Redmond over 20 years to incorporte an SSH client proves to me that they really aren't as security conscious as they claim to be.